Second Primaries in North Carolina: Low Turnout, High Costs, and Proposed Reform

Second Primaries in North Carolina:

Low Turnout, High Costs, and Proposed Reform

NC Institute for Constitutional Law

Introduction        

North Carolina is one of eight states that hold second primary (or runoff) elections when a first place candidate fails to reach a threshold percentage of the vote.[1]  Historically, turnout has been incredibly low in second primaries—as low as 2 to 5 percent.  In addition, runoffs cost taxpayers millions of dollars—some estimate as much as $8 million— in election administration costs, not to mention the added expense to candidates and their supporters. This paper examines voter turnout and the high costs associated with second primaries in North Carolina.  It concludes by suggesting that North Carolina should end runoffs or at least lower the minimum vote threshold to preclude the vast majority of runoffs. 

I.    Origins of North Carolina law on second primaries

At the outset, it is important to note that there is no constitutional requirement, in either the North Carolina or U.S. Constitution, for second primaries.  Rather, they are purely creatures of statute.  Second primaries entered the scene in Southern states at the turn of the 20^th Century as a means of maintaining the dominance of the Democratic Party.  Jim Tharpe, “Runoff system a Southern relic,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 8, 2009.[2]  Beginning in 1915, North Carolina law required that where no primary candidate received a majority of the vote, the second place challenger could opt for a runoff against the top vote getter. David Perlmutt, “Should N.C. abandon expensive, low-interest runoff elections,” The Charlotte Observer, June 2, 2012.[3]  This requirement helped Democratic Party officials ensure that the primary winner would be the candidate most likely to defeat the Fusion ticket candidates (a combination of white and black Republicans and Populists) in the general election.  See Perlmutt above.

In 1989 the law was changed, reducing the minimum vote threshold from a majority down to 40 percent where it remains today. As the law reads, a candidate must “receive[] a substantial plurality of the votes cast” to avoid a runoff if one is requested by the runner-up. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-111(a) & (b).  “Substantial plurality” is defined by statute as 40 percent of the vote. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-111(a)(1).

II. Historically low turnout, but high costs for second primaries

a.    Runoff turnout

A survey of voter turnout in the four most recent second primaries in North Carolina reveals that turnout has been extremely low.  Runoffs supposedly allow voters whose preferred candidate loses to throw their support behind one of the remaining two candidates.  Theoretically, this allows the people a greater voice and gives legitimacy to the eventual winner’s nomination.  The theory barely holds water, however, because runoffs are generally decided by only a tiny fraction of the voting public.

The most recent second primary held in North Carolina in July 2012 featured no less than 15 runoffs and yielded a turnout of just 3.58 percent of eligible voters.  Second Primary Official Results, NC Board of Elections, July 17, 2012.[4]  For the second primaries held in 2010, 2008, and 2004 turnout was 4.5 percent, 1.83 percent, and 3 percent, respectively.  Second Primary Election Official Results, NC State Board of Elections, June 22, 2010;[5] Second Primary Election Official Results, NC State Board of Elections, June 24, 2008;[6] FairVote.org.[7]  Such low turnout undercuts the argument that runoffs are any more reflective of the will of the voters.  In fact, a strong argument can be made that runoffs with 2 to 5 percent turnout result in a less democratic outcome than primaries where more people vote, even if only a simple plurality of votes is sufficient to win.

Take the 2010 Democratic U.S. Senate primary, for example.  Turnout in the May 4 primary was 14.41 percent statewide.  Primary Election Official Results, NC State Board of Elections, May 4, 2010.[8]    The two highest vote getters were Elaine Marshall, with 154,605 total votes (36.35%), followed by Cal Cunningham, with 115,851 total votes (27.24%). 

Because Marshall failed to reach 40 percent, Cunningham forced a runoff.  In the runoff, turnout dropped to 4.5 percent statewide, and Marshall won with 95,390 total votes (59.96%) to Cunningham’s 63,691 total votes (40.04%). Second Primary Election Official Results, NC State Board of Elections, June 24, 2008. 

As the elections results show, the number of eligible voters who participated dropped from 425,343 to 159,081. Thus, instead of supporters of losing candidates coalescing around the two remaining contenders, voter interest plummeted.  Indeed, Marshall got nearly as many votes in the first primary (154,605) as the total number of votes that were cast in the second primary (159,081).

In more obscure races where the public may be even less engaged, the disparity in voter turnout has been even more pronounced.  For instance, the 2008 primary saw turnout reach 36.86 percent.  Primary Election Official Results, NC State Board of Elections, May 6, 2008.[10]  The results of the Democratic primary for Commissioner of Labor were very close.

At first blush, this appears to be an ideal situation for a second primary, with the vote so close and each candidate’s percentage so low.  However, in the ensuing runoff, turnout dropped from 36.86 percent statewide to an abysmal 1.83 percent, with only 63,910 total voters in the Donnan-Brooks runoff.  The runoff results were as follows:

In the first primary between Donnan and Brooks, 1.2 million people voted, likely due to the historic nature of the Presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.  Even so, fewer than 64,000 voted in the runoff between Donnan and Brooks.  Donnan got over a quarter million more votes in the first primary than the total number of votes cast in the second primary.  With turnout so low, runoffs can hardly be said to enhance the democratic process.

b.    High costs of second primaries

Each second primary costs taxpayers millions of dollars to administer.  Some estimate the cost of the July 2012 runoff at $5 million.  Brent Laurenz, “N.C. Voters Can Take a Trip to the Polls this Month,” The Voter Update, July 3, 2012.[11]  However, state elections director Gary Bartlett has calculated an even greater cost of between $7 and $8 million.  David Perlmutt, “Should N.C. abandon expensive, low-interest runoff elections?” The Charlotte Observer, July 13, 2012.  This estimate includes the cost of equipment and staffing precincts with election judges statewide for a record 15 runoffs.  Candidates must spend more money, too.  This can be a death knell for less well-financed candidates who must spend remaining resources in a runoff when they would otherwise have been available for the general election.  With such enormous expense associated with runoff elections, the real question is whether 2 to 5 percent turnout is warrants the expense.  

III. Alternatives to second primaries

There are a number of alternatives to holding second primaries from which North Carolina could choose.  The simplest and most straightforward would be to abolish them altogether.  The statute could be amended to strike the provision that allows second place challengers to demand a runoff when the first place finisher fails to reach 40 percent.  Short of abolishing the second primary altogether, the statute could be amended to reduce the threshold to a percentage below 40 percent.  The General Assembly lowered the threshold once before, in 1989, and could do so again, perhaps to 30, 25, or even 20 percent.  Either option would yield millions of dollars in savings to the taxpayers.  In a time of economic worry and fiscal constraints, $8 million dollars spent on a low yielding runoff could be redirected toward other top priorities in the state.     

Conclusion

         The second primary is an outdated relic of past political eras.  Today, runoffs cost taxpayers as much as $8 million dollars and voter turnout ranges between 2 and 5 percent.  North Carolina would do well to consider eliminating the second primary or lowering the minimum vote required to avoid a second primary.  Until reform is passed, the taxpayers will continue to waste millions of dollars on incredibly low turnout runoffs.